Archive

In this article we try to clarify the notion of meritocracy and show that it is indeed a valid concept which can be used to assess any proposed system of government or management.

Meritocracy is defined as the promotion of individuals on basis of talent, achievement or intellectual ability. It is a concept that to many would appear self evident, yet it is in competition with other methods of selection, such as wealth (plutocracy) or popularity (democracy), which frequently result in an inferior outcome. The origins of the term are said to be negative, but a gentle redefinition from the original sarcastic usage can make the idea very powerful and beneficial for society.

The argument is that, if individuals are promoted on the basis of merit to positions of leadership, then those organizations will run more effectively, since decisions made will likely be more logical and mistakes avoided. Society benefits as less harm is done and more good is achieved. The Meritocracy Party (UK) espouses these principles, more or less.

The strongest argument against a meritocratic system (of government, or anything else) is that the meritorious will quickly convert the system to an oligarchy run by a self appointed elite. It is clear that, from generation to generation, wild fluctuations in intellectual capacity of progeny occur, which serve to show how problematic an oligarchy can be. The Bush Family and the British Royal Family come to mind as examples. The Iraq war, the stagnation of British democracy and the current world economic crisis could all be attributed to a failure of social systems to establish or maintain a meritocratic process.

Meritocracy is not a system in itself, but an attribute of a system. This is a particularly important distinction. Once a system, as good as it may be, ceases to successfully promote individuals on basis of merit, it ceases to be meritocratic, no matter how much it is advertised to the contrary. The system becomes corrupt. Frequently, people will argue over what constitutes merit. Those in positions of power will seek to change and redefine merit to promote themselves. It is therefore important to define merit in an indisputable way and to establish mechanisms which protect and defend the idea of merit.

What is merit?

Defining merit depends on context. Merit consists of attributes which predict that an individual will be successful at a given task. A person who scores well in a mathematics exam at a graduation exam is likely to make a good mathematician, for example. In the field of academia, meritocracy is rightly an overriding principle for promoting and maintaining excellence.

The scientific process can be used to validate many meritorious attributes, by the use of objective measures and statistical analysis. Attributes can be weighted, and the probability of success estimated for each applicant for a given position or role. Some attributes, such as honesty or compassion, cannot be measured reliably, but can, nonetheless, be measured. Moral principles and moral integrity should feature in any system of promotion, either by looking for positive signs of these, or the absence of negative signs, as these traits are important in the perpetuation of the meritocratic ideal.

Some systems naturally lend themselves to meritocratic principles, such as sporting events, where performance is easily quantified. Yet within a sporting team, for example, determining who should be given a leadership position is less clear. There are, of course, systems which are used to guide the selection of leaders among a group, many of which are more or less scientifically validated, but the process is frequently not transparent and is easily corrupted. Thus, meritocracy is a thing which exists only when it lives in the minds of those who have the power to deliver it.

Social Aspects of Meritocracy

There are those who question the justice of a merit based system in terms of wealth distribution and so forth. This can only be because of a distorted view of who might merit the privilege of having wealth. The distribution of wealth needs to be divided into needs and wants. All individuals, families and groups ought to be given what they need to survive, without discrimination. This is a basic duty of any society. The concept of wealth should be considered in a narrower sense. If wealth is defined as things, over and above basic needs, that can be had for the greater enjoyment of life, it would be safe to state that merit based wealth distribution can be nothing other than fair.

There are those who would say that democracy is not a form of meritocracy, yet anything other than democracy is a lesser form of government. This kind of thinking misses the point of meritocracy, which, like the love of truth, or the rule of law, is an underlying principle to guide higher order actions. A democracy is a meritocracy if the candidates are meritorious and the populace recognizes merit and votes accordingly. Western democracies today are far from being meritocratic, because they have become overly populist and have not been scaled appropriately with growing populations. For example, it is too easy for privately owned mass media outlets to influence the outcomes of elections, and the presence of political parties places an excessive bias on the selection of candidates.

There are those who say that meritocracy denies equal opportunity. Yet the ideal of free participation in society at any level regardless of immutable traits (which in many cases define one’s abilities and therefore merits) is impractical and false. Furthermore, equal opportunity is generally not applied in such absurd ways. A dumb person cannot be an orator, for example, so a dumb person should not be employed as an orator. Of course, the immutable trait of having no voice can potentially be overcome by technology, at which point the trait is no longer immutable. Meritocracy therefore has no adverse effect in terms of fairness, in reality.

There are many other arguments against meritocracy which can be discovered on the Internet. By and large, these arguments are defeated simply by defining meritocracy appropriately. In other cases, comparisons with meritocracy serve to show up the alternatives as lacking in fairness, integrity and merit.

Promoting and Maintaining Meritocracy

To reiterate, meritocracy should itself be seen as an attribute of a system and not the definition of a system. There can really be no use for a term such as “meritocrat“, as this is a truism, even a Socratic Virtue. The question is not about whether there should be merit, but what constitutes merit. Thus, meritocracy can well be promoted as a universal concept, a universal truth.

The concept of meritocracy needs to be introduced and engendered in culture for it to flourish. If people feel that they have a right to experience meritocracy, and the duty to practice it, they will notice its absence and hopefully do something to change their situation. Without the culture of merit, there can only be corruption.

Once someone is promoted on the basis of merit, there should be periodic assessment to determine whether the selection of the individual was a correct one. Audits and a process of ‘dethronement’ should be inherent to any meritocratic system. This needn’t be done in a threatening manner, since it should always be assumed that, provided proper process was followed, a promotion was appropriate, but nonetheless this is something which is frequently lacking in many organizations.

Enemies of Merit

Certain forms of government and systems of management systematically prevent meritocratic principles from being followed. Despotism is an extreme example, where unchecked power is let loose, frequently with catastrophic results.

All power needs accountability. Even a Pope can (and occasionally should) be toppled, owing to heresy, provided that the faithful are astute enough to recognize that he has abrogated his authority.

All power is, ultimately, accountable. Despite how complete a grip on power some may appear to have, it is never absolute, and provided that the culture of merit is able to permeate a population, no despot, no oligarchy and no elite group should be considered to be above the will of the populace. Indeed, any system can be reformed to permit the promotion of individuals on the basis of merit alone.

Elitism generally refers to the (wrongful) centralization of power to a minority group which shares a particular ability, trait or character, such as wealth, education or breeding. People mostly hate elitism purely because it excludes them, but it is a natural fact of society that people with similar interests form groups. Unions and business clubs are the same thing in this regard, except that business clubs tend to work in their members’ interests far more often than do unions!

There is nothing wrong with having a lot of money. I doubt anyone, after some consideration, would have any objections to have plenty of it, but what gets one’s ire up is the way in which money is obtained, especially if it was by immoral means. There are wealthy people who have reached their status fairly and squarely on the foundations of good ideas, good management and good business principles alone, but the truth, if it were known, would probably be that the majority of the filthy rich did whatever it took to get there – all within the law of the land, of course, but rarely within the confines of moral law. They see life and money as a game, where understanding and exploiting the rules (and exploiting those who don’t understand the rules) is more important than trying to play fairly and not crush one’s opponent.

A similar situation exists with education. There is nothing wrong with being intelligent, educated, academically accomplished, but growing numbers of people with academic degrees are obtaining them undeservedly, getting ‘helped’ through, followed by getting plum jobs and so forth. In the Financial Times, an article appears bemoaning the “shocking” rise in elitism among the Professions in the United Kingdom. It describes how, among groups such as lawyers, fewer and fewer ‘outsiders’ are admitted into the ranks. The profession remains within families, who, by means of the wealth generated by the profession, are able to afford to send their children to the private schools which feed the universities which in turn train the lawyers. Internships and other important appointments are then given to the favorites, either on the basis of long standing friendships, club membership or family ties. It’s a typical story of the class divisions which the English speaking world seems unable to shake off.

The problem with the public debate is that the wrong phenomenon (elitism) is being identified as being a problem. The real problem is the erosion of meritocracy.

Elite groups are an essential part of a functioning society. Academics are rightly entrusted with the task of giving society timely advice on topics which they are experts on. The wealthy are entitled to do whatever they wish with their money, within legal limits. Doctors are entitled to support each other, protect their profession and advise society on medical issues. The same for lawyers, teachers, nurses, shop owners, cleaners, anybody.

What society is lacking is the freedom for someone from the bottom to rise to the top by his own merit. It is not the fault of the professions or professionals, but the abject failure of government to provide an adequate standard of free education for its constituency. Because state run education is so inadequate, universities are naturally looking at private education for its intake because those schools produce literate, numerate adults. The students from these schools continue to do well in university, not because they are more intelligent, but because they are better supported, both socially and financially.

Bright students in state run schools suffer from poor quality teachers, poor quality teaching materials, large class sizes, lack of resources and low morale. To get an equivalent score to that of a privately educated student, a state educated student has to work harder and put up with lower expectations placed on him.

It wasn’t as bad as this in the past, because in the past, to be a teacher was a serious vocation, a respected profession, like being a doctor. You had to be above average at school to become a teacher. It was possible to fail a teaching degree if you weren’t good enough. Teachers graduating from universities were of a guaranteed minimum standard, such that whatever school someone went to, he could be almost guaranteed to receive a good and fair education, as long as the individual himself was enthusiastic and hard working. With the decline in teaching, the semi-adequate graduates look like geniuses when placed next to their peers. As a result, they get all the well paid jobs at private schools, with small class sizes and luxurious facilities.

So, what passes for elitism is merely the fact that those who understand the inadequacies of state run education are doing what they can to ensure that their own progeny is not disadvantaged by government incompetency. No doubt there are, additionally, elements of corruption and pockets of racial supremacy, but by and large the problem lies squarely with government.

The solution? Pay teachers what they’re worth, and the previously better situation will gradually return.

There are winners and losers whenever a system changes. But because the coming Socialism is already proving to be systematically corrupt and in no way will be based on merit, we are doomed to be governed by unimaginative, humourless individuals with no emotional or intellectual intelligence.

Talk of the nationalization of the Bank of America and Citiban, is just another in a series of events which appear to culminate in the rapid introduction of international socialism through the “nationalization” of all major facets of social life around the developed (economically insolvent) world.

Investors’ concerns that the Obama administrationwill have to take over one or more large financial groups heightened as Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, admitted a temporary nationalisation of some banks “may happen”.

Temporary is a very rubbery term. Even the word “day” is rubbery. It could mean a million years, for example. More clear is the trend towards rapid growth of Government ownership of key assets, especially those of the financial sector, resulting an extreme centralization of power. This can already be seen in practically all sectors, aside from retail:

Banking (in process)

Health (half complete)

Education (almost complete from the outset)

Manufacturing (in process)

Transport

The only area which has not been invaded by government is the retail sector, which is of little importance.

Government control of infrastructure is not altogether bad. In a representative democratic system, the idea is that the voters are the shareholders of the Government, and the more the Government owns, the more a share (or a vote) counts. There is very little use, for example, in voting for or against a policy of government when there are no assets with which to enact that policy. For example, changing police laws is meaningless if everywhere there are private security firms and, essentially, “private” justice.

The difference is that governments are being set up to default on these purchases. The government “buys” everything on the public purse, but when it is over a barrel with its debts, the government will be at the whim of its financiers, more than it has ever been. Once this occurs, we can anticipate the rapid decline of democratic process to the point that it is formally done away with.

The financiers of governments may not force the governments to sell their assets, as the future model is probably not going to be “capitalist”, but by becoming the owners of the government they will exert their control in appointing leaders and directing policy, including foreign policy. The financiers will amass infinite wealth by becoming tax collectors, not merely through private debt, but now through public debt.

In the past, democratic process and free enterprise has improved the lot of those who are part of it, because the system rewarded hard work and allowed the populace determine what constitutes “merit” and who should be leaders on the basis of that merit.

Currently merit is determined by the media and state run education, but only insofar as it can influence the populace. The Internet is changing this, and the intellectual power of the public has grown (alarmingly, in the eyes of the Establishment).

The future may well involve the removal of the very things that the public uses to influence the world: money, politics and free speech. By socializing money (all banks being government owned with the politicization of credit and regulation of all enterprise) and bankrupting government (transferring its ownership away from the public), people will have no way to change the things they do not like about their circumstances, except through the same means that were employed in the Soviet Union. People will stop working hard, stop caring, and anyone showing any signs of resistance will be removed.